Posted on 11/08/2010 12:57:34 PM PST by rxsid
No. 10-446
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism.
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010
Attorney Apuzzo's blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Should Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves, in your opinion? Why or why not?
No, because appointment to the court is not grounds for recusing. Should Alito or Scalia or Thomas recuse themselves because they're Republicans and therefore their impartiality could be called into question by the liberals?
Placemark.
Being appointed by a generic “Republican” is totally different than being appointed by the defendant in the case you’re hearing.
You don’t see the difference there? You don’t see the financial and personal conflict of interest for both Kagan and Sotomayor?
No. I guess I don't have your imagination.
Obviously Kagan has already seen her own conflict by recusing herself in (at least) 25 cases so far. Will she be consistent? Will the “wise Latina?” We shall see, IF they happen to hear this case.
The fact that you would call the very obvious financial conflict of interest a figment of my imagination speaks volumes about you.
If SCOTUS rules that Obama was never lawfully declared the winner of the electoral vote, Kagan and Sotomayor will be thrown out by their ears and can kiss their paychecks and reputations good-bye.
If you can’t even see something as concrete and obvious as that, it’s pretty much pointless for me to try to point out anything to you.
The question is did Kagan represent the government or Obama in one or the many other Supreme Court cases about Obama's eligibility when she was the United States Solicitor General?
Kagan has recused herself from hearing every case in which she did legal work for the Government. The Solicitor General's office has apparently done no work in any of the Obama eligibility cases-- they have never filed anything with the Court in this case or any of the prior ones.
Will the “wise Latina?” We shall see, IF they happen to hear this case.
I expect that the Court will treat this case the way they treated all prior eligibility cases-- cert. will be denied without a single recorded dissent.
She does have that in her favor at least. Hopefully she’ll do the same on this one. But then that will really show up Sotomayor’s lack of ethics of Kagan recuses herself but Sotomayor doesn’t recuse herself.
She does have that in her favor at least. Hopefully she’ll do the same on this one. But then that will really show up Sotomayor’s lack of ethics if Kagan recuses herself but Sotomayor doesn’t recuse herself.
No-- the Soliciitor General did not file anything with the Supreme Court in this or any prior Obama eligibility case.
Probably not, because of the de facto officer doctrine.
Apparently Kagan thinks she represented the government in 21 cases that will be heard. Had those cases advanced beyond mere certiorari when Kagan became a SCOTUS member? If not, then Kagan seems to think that what she did just in dealing with those cases before they ever actually were accepted by SCOTUS was enough for her to have a conflict of interest.
IOW, Lurking Libertarian’s claim that the Solicitor General doesn’t do anything with a case until after SCOTUS agrees to hear it doesn’t seem to match what Kagan thinks - unless the process was different for the 21 cases Kagan recused herself from than for the eligibility cases.
What makes a person a “de facto officer”?
If the candidates in the contested elections set up office and start acting like they won does that make them de facto officers?
Isn’t the decision to not file a response also a legal decision in and of itself? A decision that would be made by Kagan?
Lets be clear here. The Solicitor General does represent the Government of the United States by determining its legal stance and conducts the cases in front of the Supreme Court.
First off, where did I ever say that "the Solicitor General doesn’t do anything with a case until after SCOTUS agrees to hear it"? I never made any such claim.
In most of the cases where Kagan recused herself (and it's now way more than 21), she signed a brief to the Court, as Solicitor General, asking the Court to grant or deny certiorari. Recusal is clearly required in those cases.
There were a few cases where Kagan recused herself where she never filed anything; lawyers (on the various professional blogs which cover the Supreme Court) were surprised by those recusals, but she apparently recused herself simply because she had discussed the case with some government lawyer. That's a tougher recusal standard than most judges would apply, so it's possible she will recuse herself from this case if she discussed it with anyone; we have no way to know until the order granting or denying cert. comes down. But nothing in the record so far would require her recusal.
Getting certified as President by Vice President Cheney and the joint session of Congress, and being sworn in by the Chief Justice.
There are literally hundreds of cases a month where someone files a cert. petition and the government doesn't respond. I doubt that the Solicitor General herself, as opposed to some low-level lawyer in her office, reviews every single one of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.